Talk:Miri (episode)
Why does Miri look exactly like earth? Even after i have read James Blishs thoughts stated in the article, i still haven't found an explanation as to why the continents on Miri look exactly like the ones on earth. Could it be that this was just a desperate measure to keep attention/tv-ratings high? -- 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) :You could speculate that a superior alien race created a duplicate of Earth and populated it with humans as an experiment, a zoo, entertainment, maybe food. No way to say. Given the other near-Earth analogs found in the 23rd century, you might even speculate that the same group of aliens were rather busy. Maybe alien kid classroom projects. Who knows? I not a big fan of speculation but it makes more sense than that stupid Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development. This is one of those things that you won't get answered, unless they come up with one in the next movie.--StarFire209 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) removed nitpicks These nitpicks were removed because they dont make sense, in a variety of manners. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Nitpicks * As the landing party closes in on the unknown creature in the closet (which turns out to be Miri), Kirk stops to ask Spock how old the piano is! This is a very curious and irrelevant question for such a moment. ** This is an odd one -- Kirk realized they were being listened to, and spent a moment trying to sound nonchalant. This might be difficult to perceive, but if you define a nit-pick as a "mistake" then this isn't one -- also, the crew '''would' be very surprised by the various ancient contraptions found in a 1960s building. Any of us might be curious to the point of conversation if faced with a 1706 building. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * In the scene where the children are throwing rocks (which are actually made of paper mache) at the landing party, a "rock" the size of a softball bounces off the back of one of the security guards' heads, and he keeps running. (No, this scene occurs in "The Return of The Archons") ** Is the article a good place to start an argument over which episode this occurred in? Either way, if i was hit in the head with a rock, but remained conscious, '''i'd keep running too'. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * There must have been a large amount of food, as the children have survived 300 years without adults, yet they were only beginning to run out of food. ** Find a way to state this in the summary, or in a related article. Its a valid plot point, but again, not a "nit pick" or "mistake" -- its part of the story that the writers intended to be in there -- '''isn't there even a line or two where the crew notices it and asks what they ate..'? if so, how could this be a "mistake"? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * The ship had beamed medical tools down to the landing party, yet -- after the landing party's communicators were stolen and they went days without contacting the ship -- the ship never bothered to beam down communicators. ** I missed them saying it had been several days -- i thought it was more like a matter of hours, perhaps one whole day. This could be mentioned in a summary or other article, if need be, but correct the amount of time (unless i'm wrong -- did they say it had been "days" since they contacted the ship??) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk this one is easy, food can be stolen without giving secrets to a potentially hostile enemy. communicators cant signed TechniMyoko sorry im on a umpc and punctuation is difficult ::Um, has no one here ever heard of ''dramatic license? <:\ --Kojirovance 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ::Oh, we have--but we've also heard of 'plot holes', and this episode has a bunch of them. The one that kills the episode for me is that when Jahn steals the landing party's communicators, we see him get five--presumably Kirk's, Spock's, and McCoy's, since they're the ones who had been in the room, possibly those of the two guards. We'll overlook the fact that nobody automatically grabs his communicators when they leave. The bigger problem is that there are six members of the landing party--Rand is taking a walk with Miri, and it simply beggars the imagination that she wouldn't have her communicator with her in case Kirk needed to contact her, or she him. -- 23:58, September 8, 2009 (UTC)Jim in NYC Although the credits list John Megna as "Fat Little Boy," they are wrong. He played "Jahn's Friend." Thus, it would seem, Keith Taylor actually played the Fat Little Boy. Sir Rhosis 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Remastered Just saw the premiere of the remastered version. Aside from shots of the planet and possibly a smoother phaser effect, I didn't notice any changes. In my area, Connecticut, USA, this episode preceeded , making it the first remastered episode broadcast.-- StAkAr Karnak 23:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) I'd prefer to see the Remastered planet illustrate this article, with the original shot in the background section. Granted, I don't have a new picture... -- StAkAr Karnak 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ::How about [TOS original remastered.jpg|this? It doesn't specify that it was Miri (remastered), but the skewed view of North America in the "before" frame is a match. I believe the effects shot was used twice in TOS. (Note: I haven't seen the remastered "Miri," so you'd have to judge.) Personally I like that episode articles are getting remastered notes and images added under Background information or Behind the scenes, with pics so the reader can see "old versus new." For my money, I resist the view that the new remastered episodes (which are trimmed as well, at least in broadcast) are superceding the old ones as "the genuine article." I will ALWAYS believe that Klingon D7 disrupters fire from the warp nacelles, Gorns don't blink, etc. ;) (I'm 1/2-joking, after 39 years, I think it's great the Gorn Captain finally gets to blink.) --Kojirovance 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Prurient sexual assault back-story Okay, maybe I'm getting squeamish in my middle age, but I find the background information bullet about a cast member's sexual assault irrelevant to an appreciation of the episode. I realize that she has gone public with this info in her own book, but that doesn't grant an unlimited license to trumpet it here as well. It's mentioned on her bio page, that's probably more than enough. I suggest we preserve her dignity and not make this a pertinent point of interest in the episode description page. (E.g., "Oh, Miri, right, that was the episode she acted in just before....") I realize this may be a point of contention for some, but I have to counsel that sometimes less is more. -- Kojirovance 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) :In this case, I have to disagree with you. The event in question has a relevant connection to the production of the episode, and therefore the note should stay. It is one of many notes, and I only feel that it puts a bad tone, if you will, on the entire episode if you let it. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) :: Certainly, it's a sensitive subject. Still, if Whitney is comfortable enough to put it in her book, she likely wouldn't have a problem with it being here. It doesn't name any names, so it is not damaging to anyone's reputation. "Dignity" is subjective and POV (some might call TOS outfits or hairstyles undignified). It may not be germane to the story, but I think it lends credibilty to MA as an objective reference; it doesn't attempt to gloss over any unpleasantness and pretend it didn't happen. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Removed observation :Kirk's comment that he never gets "involved with older women" in the last scene is interesting since he had a romance with Ruth in his Starfleet Academy years. Assuming that he is 33 years old in this episode (he says his age is 34 in ), Ruth must have been quite a bit older than he was when he met her, especially when he says in that she "hasn't aged" and that it has been "fifteen years" since he has seen her. This information seems to suggest that his break-up with Ruth is the reason why Kirk does not get romantically involved with older women. I removed the above observation. For one thing, it's not really background (behind-the-scenes) info; for another, IIRC, Kirk said it in a light-hearted manner to Miri so the line probably shouldn't be taken literally; and lastly, maybe Ruth just looked old for her age? Okay, so all that is speculation, but I still don't think this belongs in the article. --From Andoria with Love 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Parodied on "South Park" The South Park episode "The Wacky Molestation Adventure" was a parody of this episode. Kyle is mad at his parents, so Cartman suggests he tell the police that his parents molested him. All the kids in town follow suit. An adult married couple stop by when they have car trouble and find the town is ruled by kids. They use bizarre slang such as "the before time" and say they got rid of the "birth givers" by using "the magic M word." – Enterprise1981 02:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Question Wouldn't there be surviving kids on the other continents of Miri's world - mirror-Europe, mirror-Australia etc? What would happen to them? Continuity Aside from the Ophiuchus rebranding in the notes, is the planet ever named? Does it ever show up in Star Trek again? You would think a backup Earth would be very interesting to the Federation. It certainly seems like it would be interesting to future writers. 00:36, October 13, 2011 (UTC) Whitney and Roddenberry I removed the following note (about the sexual assault on Whitney) below: * Herb Solow and Robert Justman's book, ''Inside Star Trek: The Real Story suggests this person was Gene Roddenberry, with whom Whitney "had a personal rift" soon before her departure from the series. (Roddenberry was well-known for his affairs with numerous female cast and crew members, and selecting guest actresses, hoping he could "score with them". Also, Whitney writes about her hatred of Roddenberry in her book.) By that time, the eliminiation of Rand from the series was a long-spanning issue among the production staff (Justman was actually opposed to letting her go), and with this "rift", Roddenberry finally decided to fire her, and also made sure that she would never return (Whitney finally returned in some of the movies and in ). (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, pp 243-244)'' I think it goes too far and misrepresents what Inside Star Trek: The Real Story says by stating that the book "suggests" that Roddenberry was "The Executive". I think its worth quoting the cited passage (pp. 243-244 in the paperback) in full: The Star Trek women seemed to be mirror images of Roddenberry's sexual desires. But when the images blurred, due to internal or external problems, the mirror and a career could both be shattered. Such was the story of Grace Lee Whitney. Everybody liked Grace Lee. Handpicked by Roddenberry to play the ship's third and final yeoman, Janice Rand, she gave the series a likable, sensual beauty and an on-board unrequited love interest for Captain Kirk. But the pressures of controlling her weight and her strained personal relationships were destructive to her career; she succumbed to the worst of emotional supports and became both alcoholic and addicted to diet pills. In the process, she lost her role. She was dropped from the series after only seven shows. The "official" reason for Whitney's sudden departure was that the role of the yeoman limited the possibility of other romantic involvements for the energetic Captain Kirk. With an exotic new planet and an exotic new female every week, he would be free to experiment in inter-planetary romances. In discussion in early September 1966, Roddenberry, Solow, and Weitzman agreed there was no artistic or financial justification to continue her very limited role in light of the show's serious budgetary problems. Strangely, Roddenberry evinced no interest in retaining his hand-picked yeoman, while Justman, opposed to "losing her", held out hope that she would return to guest star in future episodes. Roddenberry never contacted Whitney to give her the bad news. Her agent was formally advised by Desilu Business Affairs that her services were no longer required. (Years later, there was talk of a sudden personal rift between Roddenberry and Whitney that occurred just prior to her departure from the show. The rift supposedly guaranteed that she would never return to Star Trek. But she did return – in some of the Star Trek movies. And there was no appearance then of any ill will between them.) I'm not suggesting we whitewash any unpleasantness, and I'm not making any comment the likelihood or otherwise of Roddenberry's involvement. But its highly inappropriate for us, as an encyclopedia, to claim that the book is making accusations when the authors clearly didn't. A person can form their own view, reading between the lines all they like, but that's original research and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Its particularly to be avoided in relation to such serious claims.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:33, November 1, 2011 (UTC)